(only) 8 factions

[JokerJace]

One thing that has always bugged me about the Civilization franchise is the similarity between the available factions. I always imagined the games to have a better replayability and be more fun in general if they made the factions truly unique instead of having temporal UUs and often situational UBs/UIs that have no impact on the game in many cases. The same point could be raised for some UAs. They are often temporal or completely useless depending on how you have to adapt in certain matches. For example the celts and mongolia in CiV... Wouldn't it be better to have a unique x per age for every faction and/or different models for the vanilla units for every ethnos? This are just two things why I feel like there is a lot of potential flavour that's not been addressed in the past. At least CiV was able to compensate this a little with the sheer number of factions it has in it. Now that Beyond Earth will have only 8 factions I wonder if they will make them more distinct than in previous games or if the main distinction between matches will still be your starting position. Don't get me wrong, I don't want Civilization to be like your typical RTS game, where the single factions have absolutely nothing in common apart from relying on the same resources... But I think the franchise would greatly benefit from going a few more steps in that direction.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I also hope so.
I am worried by their faction X is stron in a,b, c and weak in e,f,g
If they are just a bunch of +-, that would be VERY disappointing

However
1. They could just be describing the overall effect of the abilities
2. They could also be describing the AI (it focuses on abc and not efg)

 

[El Caballerion]

I agree. However, what if the situation was like this: Most of the factions are mostly identical, but there's much much more variety that can be unlocked as the game progresses (i.e., what if the affinities vastly changed gameplay in many many ways)? That would be interesting.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I agree. However, what if the situation was like this: Most of the factions are mostly identical, but there's much much more variety that can be unlocked as the game progresses (i.e., what if the affinities vastly changed gameplay in many many ways)? That would be interesting.

That would still be a failure on the devs part.

With only 8 factions they can do interesting things
Like Polynesia (ocean travel and moais)
Or
Zulu (unique promotions and cheaper promotions)
Or
Egypt (wonders and easy happiness)
Or
India (restricted colonization.. Good growth)
Or
VENICE (significant gameplay change)

Etc. take those and magnify them
(The 'negatives' sound promising because of that...a truly UA that helps in some areas but hinders in others is good)

 

[MountainTiger]

I also hope so.
I am worried by their faction X is stron in a,b, c and weak in e,f,g
If they are just a bunch of +-, that would be VERY disappointing

However
1. They could just be describing the overall effect of the abilities
2. They could also be describing the AI (it focuses on abc and not efg)

Well designed +/- systems can be very interesting if they interact with other elements of the design; I find SMAC's factions, which are mostly differentiated by small bonuses or penalties, much more distinct than Civ V civs because the SMAC system introduces asymmetries that touch other parts of the design while Civ V just hands you a couple of bonuses that don't connect to anything else.

For BE, it is worth remembering that, as I understand it, your leader and choice of cargo are separate from your faction, so the actual range of starting choices will be greater than the factions alone suggest (though how each of these influences plays out over the course of a game is still unknown, I think). A smaller number of factions also makes differentiating factions easier, which could produce a greater variety of playstyles out of a smaller pool of abilities.

 

[Lord Shadow]

Well designed +/- systems can be very interesting if they interact with other elements of the design; I find SMAC's factions, which are mostly differentiated by small bonuses or penalties, much more distinct than Civ V civs because the SMAC system introduces asymmetries that touch other parts of the design while Civ V just hands you a couple of bonuses that don't connect to anything else.

For BE, it is worth remembering that, as I understand it, your leader and choice of cargo are separate from your faction, so the actual range of starting choices will be greater than the factions alone suggest (though how each of these influences plays out over the course of a game is still unknown, I think). A smaller number of factions also makes differentiating factions easier, which could produce a greater variety of playstyles out of a smaller pool of abilities.

That's right. CivBE's SMAC-like faction bonuses and penalties are compounded not only by initial setup choices, but also virtues, affinities and decisions within those affinities and throughout the game. The myriad of combinations presents a high potential for playstyle customization and variability from game to game, given how it's been said AI players don't always go for the same strategies.

 

[PhilBowles]

One thing that has always bugged me about the Civilization franchise is the similarity between the available factions. I always imagined the games to have a better replayability and be more fun in general if they made the factions truly unique instead of having temporal UUs and often situational UBs/UIs that have no impact on the game in many cases. The same point could be raised for some UAs. They are often temporal or completely useless depending on how you have to adapt in certain matches. For example the celts and mongolia in CiV... Wouldn't it be better to have a unique x per age for every faction and/or different models for the vanilla units for every ethnos? This are just two things why I feel like there is a lot of potential flavour that's not been addressed in the past. At least CiV was able to compensate this a little with the sheer number of factions it has in it. Now that Beyond Earth will have only 8 factions I wonder if they will make them more distinct than in previous games or if the main distinction between matches will still be your starting position. Don't get me wrong, I don't want Civilization to be like your typical RTS game, where the single factions have absolutely nothing in common apart from relying on the same resources... But I think the franchise would greatly benefit from going a few more steps in that direction.

This is much easier for Civ BE to handle than the standard game, because of the pressure (largely justifiable, I feel) for a historically-based Civ game to represent as wide a variety of historical civilisations as possible, and to do so in a way that's mostly consistent with what people expect from those factions.

With wholly invented factions you have a lot more freedom, both in terms of how few factions you can get away with and how each is portrayed (though even in BE, the national link remains and causes some incongruities - I've seen Brasilia's military focus questioned; an American faction whose weaknesses are in culture and religion - two of the most prominent features of the real-world state - is also a bit odd).

One thing I do miss is the starting tech system the older games used; in Civ IV (and Civ III?) the starting techs were Civ-specific rather than being randomised as in the previous games. There's an interesting concept from the original Civ boardgame, though I'm not sure how it could be implemented in the computer game: every civ has its own tech track, which results in them entering a given era at different rates (Babylonians progress to the Early Bronze Age more quickly than Africans, for example); this is somewhat balanced by the requirements for entering each era (mainly in the form of having a certain number or combination of techs), which mean that factions that enter an era late have more time to meet its requirements in advance and so are more likely to progress immediately to the next era, while the faction that enters, say, the Late Bronze Age first is more likely to be trapped there for a few turns while they accumulate the necessary techs to progress.

 

[JokerJace]

I really hope the +/- system is not just that but a simplified representation of more complex differences between the factions. Still, from the sound of it I fear that they keep the low quantity of unique stuff per faction and relative low impact compared to the equalities.

 

[Lancor]

I really hope the +/- system is not just that but a simplified representation of more complex differences between the factions. Still, from the sound of it I fear that they keep the low quantity of unique stuff per faction and relative low impact compared to the equalities.

With the spaceship-customization, affinities and the tech web we barely need factions at all. I still hope they habe much personality and art style differences. At least it seems like we get evolving leader appearances again.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

I hope the +/- , whatever they look like, aren't at an extreme like in SMAC or Pandora, where you end up wondering just how , say Prokhor Zakharov's guys have so much extra science output, it's like they were put on Planet to be a science farm. With techs able to be traded, you get into setups where one player will just be extorting the other, but even apart from that, the economy just naturally suggests that kind of symbiosis.

It doesn't feel real is what I'm saying; it feels like superpowers.

Add to that, bonuses on that scale would take away from this "replayability" and variation in each faction that the dev team is shooting for. An extreme bonus makes you have only one way to play. The bonus has to be picked right. This is why I believe, in fact, it is as JokerJace says.

 

[sendos]

I don't mind if there is a +/- system for factions as long as it is not too distinctive. Keep the attributes small or stack them up later in game. It would be fine if factions were like:

+15% food
+15% border expansion
-10% production
-5% culture.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I don't mind if there is a +/- system for factions as long as it is not too distinctive. Keep the attributes small or stack them up later in game. It would be fine if factions were like:

+15% food
+15% border expansion
-10% production
-5% culture.

That would be pathetic.
Different factions should play differently
an ARC sponsored colony with guns and scientists going for Supremacy
should be different from
a Polystralia sponsored colony with guns and scientists going for Supremacy

PAC (+prod) with pilgrims (+faith)
Should Not be the same as
KP (+faith) with engineers (+prod)

The idea that the SF gets satellites that last 20% longer is promising, it sounds unique.
Hopefully they looked at civs like Venice, and some of the abilities in CivRev

Your faction should give you abilities you can't get ANY other way.

 

[Liex]

That would be pathetic.
Different factions should play differently
an ARC sponsored colony with guns and scientists going for Supremacy
should be different from
a Polystralia sponsored colony with guns and scientists going for Supremacy

PAC (+prod) with pilgrims (+faith)
Should Not be the same as
KP (+faith) with engineers (+prod)

The idea that the SF gets satellites that last 20% longer is promising, it sounds unique.
Hopefully they looked at civs like Venice, and some of the abilities in CivRev

Your faction should give you abilities you can't get ANY other way.

The Gamecrater article says the PAU "behaves a lot like Civ V‘s Shoshone, expanding and grabbing territory early and then fiercely defending it." It is also said they have +diplomacy, +growth, +health, -production and -religion. Maybe the Shoshone-like territorial expansion is simplified by "+growth"; maybe its something else. Either way, I think (and hope) we can expect something at least slight more complex than just plain +/- numbers.

 

[awesome]

Your faction should give you abilities you can't get ANY other way.

this, right here. I have no doubt that there will be a lot of pluses and minuses, but there are ways to do this other than just giving everyone their own flat bonus. For example, the kavitha protectorate could get a bonus resembling civ5's celts or byzantines. Both are basically pluses and minuses affecting religion, but they do different things.

 

[Myth and Legend]

8 factions to start with, 6 more to be bought through DLC. Standard practice, same thing happened in Rome II, Shogun II, Civ 5 and other games.

 

[JokerJace]

I don't mind if there is a +/- system for factions as long as it is not too distinctive. Keep the attributes small or stack them up later in game. It would be fine if factions were like:

+15% food
+15% border expansion
-10% production
-5% culture.

If it turns out to be like this I seriously reconsider buying the game...

Your faction should give you abilities you can't get ANY other way.

Or at least a unique stack of something. I love Persia with Chichen Itza and Universal Suffrage. But Persia wouldn't be Persia without their unique "movement range 3". So I guess you are right. And I definitely agree that the level of uniqueness of venice is the best archetype.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Best would be in my opinion if the factions all feel very differen't to play

Like if one had the creative ability which allows you to resarch techs that you only its requirement, requirement in civ 5 that would mean that you could start tech writing at turn 1 without having to tech pottery first

Another could have the migration ability which allows you to move citizens between your cities allowing for very intresting things

And then their is the omniscient faction that can from turn one se what is happening all around the planet

As you se non of these factions have any direct advantages however how you use your abilities can put you ahead of the others.

However in the age of balancing this will likley not happen because its just hard to make the game fair for everyone while % based systems, often with smal bonuses is the norm today because it is easy to work with but it makes factions very much the same

 

[GoodSarmatian]

One of the first infos about Beyond Earth was that leaders aren't tied to factions.
My guess is that it's going to be a mix between unique advantages for factions and a +/- system for leaders. You could choose the Slavic Federation for the 20% longer satellite duration and combine them with Fielding because her production and science bonus presumably allow you to always have modern satellites and replace them quickly, or you could choose Barre or Thakur and focus on satellites to compensate for their production or military penalties.
If we assume that the African Union has a similar UA as the Shoeshone and Barre has a large bonus to population growth, his traits would nicely synergize with the African UA: large territory and a large population to work all the good tiles, but the production and military penalty would keep them in check by making military expansion and wonder building more difficult, thus turning them into the quintessential Libery first, wide empire from Civ 5.
Maybe leaders and their default factions are designed in a way to provide a unique playstyle with distinc advanages and weaknesses, but alternative leader choices make the factions slightly less specialised.
It's going to be choice between great synergy and a glaring achilles heel, or a more balanced approach.

 

[AriochIV]

One of the first infos about Beyond Earth was that leaders aren't tied to factions.

I've never seen any official confirmation of this, and what I have seen appears to contradict it. From the official press release: "Seed the Adventure: Establish your cultural identity by choosing one of eight different expedition sponsors, each with its own leader and unique gameplay benefits. Assemble your spacecraft, cargo & colonists through a series of choices that directly seed the starting conditions when arriving at the new planet."

 

[Lord Shadow]

Yeah, and Suzanne even has ARC pins on her clothes.